Slashdot Mirror
Energy Department Refuses To Give Trump Team Names of People Who Worked On Climate Change (businessinsider.com)
The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will reject the request by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Energy spokesman Eben Burnhan-Snyder said the agency received "significant feedback" from workers regarding a questionnaire from the transition team that leaked last week. From a Reuters story, syndicated on BusinessInsider: The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place. The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years. "Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people," Eben Burnham-Snyder, Energy Department spokesman said. "We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."
The management has to know this will get them sacked, and yet they still protected their team.
Good on them, and may they be showered by job offers once sacked.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Yes, let the purge of climatologists began. After all, King Trump will demonstrate, unlike King Canute, that he can stop the tides!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Instead of just immediately refusing the request, has anyone bothered to ask the Trump Transition Team why they want the list? Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions. Especially to ask for the list this early in the game, it seems weird that it would be for a blacklist. Generally you would wait until you were in office to go after the opposition.
Gov: Whatcha huntin' Doc?
Trump: Ducks.
Gov: This is wabbit season.
Trump: Why. You. Little.... Grrrr (steam comes out of ears).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Try harder! Calling people Nazis stopped being effective about 3 weeks ago.
"Oh, and since the science is settled abuot climate change, the EPA obviously doesn't need anybody to research it... right?"
Actually since so many are rejecting facts, we need to keep proving the fact as many times as possible until it gets through their thick heads or they give up. If those that reject facts would get out of their feelings and look at the data for what it is, not what they want it to be, we could have stopped researching "is it happening" and we could be on , "how do we fix it." But as usual, science deniers are holding all progress back, because it just does not feel real.
"Science is the power of man"
Nothing Trump has said makes anybody think they would want this list for anything good. Trump is an ignorant, egotistical fool. I'm not even sure he means well, I think he's doing the whole president thing solely for his ego. While the backlash that would occur should the electoral college not install Trump would be massive, I think they would be fully justified in not voting for him. This is exactly why the electoral college exists, but it's unfortunate that there are no good alternatives to Trump right now. At least the alternatives wouldn't be doing it for their ego, and wouldn't be completely ignorant about pretty much everything.
and rejects this monstrosity. Not likely, but that's the reason they exist.
Science doesn't just stop. More research is always needed in virtually every area of research.
There's no real trade off. Don't start curbing CO2 emissions substantially now, and the cost to national and global economies in fifty years will be beyond astronomical.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"There are 3 managers that I will fire when I become Energy Secretary: Jane, Rick and... [pause] ...oops!"
I wonder what the US situation with respect to international relationships will look like in 4 years time.
When I first heard that Trump had won, my first thought was, how much damage could he really do?
As I see what he is doing, it seems a lot. ;)
Take for example China. Most of the EU countries have already privately told China that they will follow the status quo regardless of that Trump does or says.
Most of the world is pretty angry about the anti-climate change stuff and there is already talk about locking the US out of the market.
Naturally this would have a huge impact on EU companies as well.
The more I see what this ass hat is doing though, the more I think this is really a turning point for the US and its decline in prominence from the world stage. I guess that is natural. Countries come and go, rise a fall. I do not imagine that will stop just because it is the present.
It is not just about climate change either. Heck, he is even gutting the FCC and forbidding them to protect consumers. Remember how the FCC made those carriers stop the millions in over billing? Those days are over.
The carriers, under Trump will literally be able to do what ever they want.
I have customers who cant wait for Trump because they think they can stop testing their devices for the US market and just sell it.
Still, I really do wish those of you in the US the best of luck. There is a good chance though that you fuckballs screwed us all. At least we dont have to worry about your F35 shooting down our planes though
If he defunds climate research and fires all the government climatologists, not to mention depriving university researchers of satellite monitoring (which the move against NASA's climate research is clearly meant to do), the damage to US science will be incalculable. In four years, you'll probably see the amount of atmospheric and oceanic research dwindle.
Of course, the laws of physics won't change, so AGW will keep getting worse, but Trump and his band of anti-science fanatics will be long gone by the time the morons who voted him in begin to find out just how much of a fucking moron he was. The only thing that I can think of that comes close is the incompetence of the Administrations prior to Lincoln when trying to deal with the free/slave state issues, making the Civil War inevitable. History doesn't remember Buchanan fondly, though it did very little for the tens of thousands of soldiers that died during the Civil War.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is what losing an election like this means...it means your time of screwing over the other side is up and now you best lube up yourself. Then it will sawp back and be same as always.
And this is what is wrong with America. So many people want to cheer and say "screw the other side" or "lube up" as you put it. Well, you realize the "other side" is a good 30-40% minimum of the population of America. You screw that many people over and what you are really doing is screwing the country over, yourself included. I mean hell, Americans didn't hate each other as much during the Civil War as they do now. We are on a downward path of animosity, fiery rhetoric, obstructionism, and retribution that would leave America in such a state that even Nero would put down his lyre. Make America great again? With the current state of our politics I'm not so sure we deserve to be great anymore.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Leftists don't believe in guns, and definitely not for using them in a civil uprising.
The Bolsheviks would like a word with you...
#DeleteChrome
Democrats did get more votes than Reps. However this argument is moot and irrelevant.
In response to a "going against the will of the voters" argument, it is in no way irrelevant. It is not being brought up to try claim HRC is the real president - it's being brought up to refute the claim that DT has some sort of mandate from the masses.
Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions.
Then why did he make a climate change denier the head of the EPA to start with?
How the fuck did this guy get modded up? Trump is NOT his employer. Trump is fucking civilian until he actually takes the office.
And even then he will NOT be their employer (and he will still be a civilian). He does not own the United States or Federal Government. He is temporary management hired by the voters, and lacks unlimited powers, even within the executive branch which he manages. We do not elect gods, or kings, or tyrants (only tyrant-wannabes).
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
If you genuinely want to know what to *do* about climate change, don't you think it would be helpful to better know exactly how it's going to happen, along with where, when, and of course how much? So we can predict in detail what will happen, and prepare appropriately for it. You do want to use your mitigation and adaption budget as effectively as possible, right?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
No, we won't. Stop being delusional. First off, Biden is not part of the Sanders camp, he's a lot closer to the Hillary camp, though admittedly he isn't remotely as scandal-plagued or charismatically-challenged as her. Secondly, Biden and Sanders are both quite old now; it's really doubtful either one of them is up for a 2020 run. They'd both probably be the oldest contenders in history for those offices.
Regardless of all that, I simply cannot believe that the DNC would back Sanders again (or a Sanders clone). They're simply too corrupt; they proved it in this election. They even re-elected Pelosi to her position.
I think what's going to happen is one of 2 things: 1) Hillary will be backed, yet again, and will lose, *again*, to Trump, even amidst a terrible recession caused by Trump's policies. I think the DNC just isn't ready to throw in the towel on pushing their queen to the Presidency. 2) Some other (younger, slightly less scandal-plagued, but obviously sold-out corporatist) Hillary clone will be nominated again, again with dirty tricks by the DNC just like this year, and they'll lose, again.
And cut it out with your comments about "real democratic candidates". See the No True Scotsman fallacy. Candidates like Hillary and DWS are *real* Democrats. They epitomize the Democratic party, and this was proven this year by the DNC's backing of them.
Face it: the Democratic party has a *long* history of running establishment-backed losers. Every once in a while there's a big upset or exception, but most of the time they pick the most uncharismatic people they can find, and frequently the most corrupt. They ran Mondale and Dukakis, both horribly uncharismatic. Then they picked Bill Clinton; corrupt (though it wasn't so obvious back then) but he made up for it in charisma and the Republicans' vote was split by Perot so he won with a minority. He got lucky and presided over an economic boom fueled by the internet so he got re-elected (Dole had no charisma too). Then they ran Gore, who had the charisma of a wooden pole, and he lost (partially thanks to the vote being split by the much more progressive Nader) to Bush, who had some charisma though he was dumber than a chimp and looked like one too. Then they tried running Kerry against Bush, and Kerry too had no charisma and was totally unlikeable. Then they tried coronating their corrupt and utterly unlikeable queen Hillary, but Obama (who had lots of charisma) threw a wrench into their machinations there and beat her in the primaries in a big surprise. So now that Obama can't run for a 3rd term (which is too bad, I'll take him over Hillary any day), they did it again, and succeeded this time with lots of dirty tricks against another charismatic upstart named Sanders, and just as Michael Moore predicted, she lost to Trump, the second most unpopular candidate in history.
If the Democratic Party can't learn their lesson after at least 32 years, I have no idea why you think they'll suddenly change their ways now.
So his opposition to some of the purely political "solutions" to climate change make him a climate change denier? His urge to see countries like China held to the same standard as, say, France or the US - that makes him a "denier?"
No, the article he wrote for National Review in which he trotted out the old denialist tropes about scientific uncertainty shows he's a denialist:
That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.
It must be wonderful to be able to set any arbitrary standard rather than "preponderance of evidence" for your preferred policy position -- in this case unanimity of all scientists in the world (apparently without regard to their particularly disciplinary qualifications going by past appeals of denialists to "scientific disagreement").
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.